Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:29:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Walsh Subject: COZY: Cozy Performance Data I am new to this group. I have recently purchased a Cozy III, originally built by Alan Yarmey, who did a Beautiful job and I am thrilled with it. After some repairs (Ken Miller did some great work) TLC, and a fresh annual, I am finally able to prepare for my check ride(private). After a search I was able to find a local designated flight examiner who will give me the check ride in the Cozy. I also found a CFI (also a designated examiner) who is willing to complete my training. In order to prepare for the check ride and formalize the performance data I have (not much), I am hoping someone could provide me performance data for a Cozy III using a 0-320. I realize that specific data will vary, but this will allow me to use the POH and furnished data for an 0-320E2D 150hp, empty weight 984lbs. to complete my own handbook. The previous owner could not furnish the data. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Tim. Tim Walsh home (703) 941-4346, work (202) 647-6493. From: "Steve Campbell" Subject: COZY: Vne Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:26:47 Somebody wrote: >OK, forgive me for picking nits, BUT - (you didn't state the >temperature so I'm making a small assumption here of standard >temperature, which is probably conservative given that it's summer) >180 knots indicated at 10,000 ft, according to my trusty E6B is about >209 knots true, which is 240 mph. It would appear that the Franklin powered Cozy was flying at roughly 230-240 mph. This brings up the question of Vne on the Cozy. Mark's page lists it as 220. How comfortable do you feel flying at speeds above Vne? Is this a number that is limited by the test envelope or is there some other reason that 220 mph was chosen? Is it flutter limited? Inquiring minds want to know. Steve Campbell Cozy #473 - Chapter 10 **************************************** Stephen A. Campbell Associate Professor, EE University of Minnesota ***************************************** Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 16:00:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark J Turner Subject: Re: COZY: Vne On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Steve Campbell wrote: > It would appear that the Franklin powered Cozy was flying at roughly > 230-240 mph. This brings up the question of Vne on the Cozy. Mark's page > lists it as 220. How comfortable do you feel flying at speeds above Vne? > Is this a number that is limited by the test envelope or is there some > other reason that 220 mph was chosen? Is it flutter limited? 230-240 MPH TRUE AIRSPEED - Vne is in INDICATED (calibrated actually) which was 180 KIAS if I remember the post correctly... 180K = 207 MPH Well within the Vne of the aircraft... Mark... From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Vne (fwd) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 96 17:07:04 EDT Stephen A. Campbell wrote: >It would appear that the Franklin powered Cozy was flying at roughly >230-240 mph. This brings up the question of Vne on the Cozy. Mark's page >lists it as 220. I think the general info page lists the maximum speed at 220 MPH. This is NOT Vne. Nat lists Vne in the operating manual as 230 MPH. >....... How comfortable do you feel flying at speeds above Vne? Without an explanation of how Vne was chosen, not comfortable at all. However since Nat was doing it........ >Is this a number that is limited by the test envelope or is there some >other reason that 220 mph was chosen? Is it flutter limited? These are good questions, and I think that only Nat can answer them. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 23:39:57 -0400 From: SMilesCozy@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: speeds In a message dated 96-07-17 19:45:15 EDT, Jeff writes: >>Nat lists Vne in the operating manual as 230 MPH. >Is that IAS or TAS??? I think that would have to be IAS since the pressure the ASI sees is the pressure the airframe sees. See? ;-) Steve Miles Cozy MkIV 272 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:36:01 -0400 From: CheckPilot@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: speeds In a message dated 96-07-18 00:08:34 EDT, you write: >In a message dated 96-07-17 19:45:15 EDT, Jeff writes: > >>>Nat lists Vne in the operating manual as 230 MPH. >>Is that IAS or TAS??? > >I think that would have to be IAS since the pressure the ASI sees is the >pressure the airframe sees. See? ;-) > >Steve Miles >Cozy MkIV 272 The Vne could also be CAS but the book should note that. If not, it is assumed to be IAS. Go real high, go real fast, applies to all IAS, like gear speed too. Jim Cozy #455 ATP/MEL Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:35:12 -0400 From: EWestland@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: 1996 Oshkosh Personal Summary (fwd) > Anyway, Marc also says that with the CS prop, the plane is a rocket; > it's jumps off the ground and climbs like a you know what. Even with > the IO-320, the top end is about the same as with the O-360 because of > the prop. What are some of the issues with this type of set-up? What kind of prop was it? It may be a very good way to go as O-320's are much more available than O-360's. It was not the engine/prop that added the 250 pounds, was it? I would guess that together, they would weigh about what a "standard" O-360 package would with a wood prop, but I don't know, that's why I am asking the "experts":-). -eric Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 11:16:33 cst From: "cdbrinkl" Subject: Re[2]: COZY: 1996 Oshkosh Personal Summary (fwd) > Anyway, Marc also says that with the CS prop, the plane is a rocket; > it's jumps off the ground and climbs like a you know what. Even with > the IO-320, the top end is about the same as with the O-360 because of > the prop. What are some of the issues with this type of set-up? What kind of prop was it? It may be a very good way to go as O-320's are much more available than O-360's. It was not the engine/prop that added the 250 pounds, was it? I would guess that together, they would weigh about what a "standard" O-360 package would with a wood prop, but I don't know, that's why I am asking the "experts":-). ----------------------------- OK, I'm kinda curious as to how many hours he has on the plane with the constant speed prop. There was a discussion about pushers with C/S props on R.A.H a while back, with a few horror stories about props breaking up. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with the prop having to go through the disturbed air coming off the wings. I know the Skymaster does it successfully, but am kinda curious as to what kind of prop this guy used, and what kinds of analysis/testing he went through to make sure it would work. Chris (Mr. Curious....back to lurking) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 17:11:04 -0400 From: Marcnadine@aol.com Subject: COZY: OSH update >it? It may be a very good way to go as O-320's are much more available than >?O-360's. It was not the engine/prop that added the 250 pounds, was it? I >would guess that together, they would weigh about what a "standard" O-360 >package would with a wood prop, but I don't know, that's why I am asking the >"experts":-). Well it looks like I need to expand on the information I gave Marc Z. after my trip to OSH. Then engine that Tim used was a IO-320 with a Hoffman (oil type) adj. prop. Tim's pilot (Tim is not a Pilot at this time) told me that the plane takes off in just over 500 feet. I think the extra weight comes for the interior and other additions I do not think Tim's engine/prop setup is any or much heaver than the standard O-360 setup. When did a visit to the Hoffman and MT booth to get a price on a prop system that would work on a Cozy with a 320 motor and told by both companies it would cost about $9 to $10K. Jeff Russell of Aero Cad was a major help in arranging and setting Tim up with this setup. I am hoping when Jeff returns he will be able to give us more details on this setup. I think you will find Jeff a good resource. Currently the cost of doing what Tim did would cost more that the standard O-360 system. Tim was able to get his hands on a used Hoffman prop system. I have a ton of pictures of Tim's plane inside and out including a shots of Nat's new engine installation from every angle. Two pictures I took Marc Z. has posted on the Cozy site. If any one would want to see more, just ask and I can send them as attachments to the email.. Marc Parmelee N425CZ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:44:57 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: COZY: COZY MkIV: 1996 Oshkosh Grand champion Eric Westland and Marc wrote: >Subject: Re: COZY: 1996 Oshkosh Personal Summary (fwd) >>Anyway, Marc also says that with the CS prop, the plane is a >>rocket; it's jumps off the ground and climbs like a you know >>what. >>Even with the IO-320, the top end is about the same as >>with the O-360 because of the prop. Not so because of less HP and the prop blades are not as efficient >What are some of the issues with this type of set-up? Costs more than a fixed pitch prop. Lots more.... about $6000.00 more for a 3 blade that comes all the goodies to make it work. After talking to Velocity about what gains they have seen this is what was told to me. 1) + Faster off the ground. 1000 Ft to 500 Ft same flying weight. 2) + Better sink rate on glide slope (drag brake) 3) + or - weighs more by 17 lbs at aft CG (good for heavier people less useful load) 4) - Cost more and more up keep. 5) - Not as efficient on top end as a cruise prop that is fixed pitch. >What kind of prop was it? Used Hoffman 2 blade that was sold to Tim from Steve Russell at about the $2000.00 range. The prop needed to be overhauled so the cost went up and a governor had to be purchased. >It may be a very good way to go as O-320's are much more available >than O-360's. It was not the engine/prop that added the 250 pounds, >was it? The I0-320 weight is about 270 lbs The 0-360 weight is about 300 lbs The I0-360 angle valve is about 335 lbs It sounds like the Franklin is about 360 lbs adding a 17 lb prop will not add 250 lbs to the airplane. You should add about 4 lbs for the prop cable and 3 lbs for the governor. >I would guess that together, they would weigh about what a "standard" >O-360 package would with a wood prop, but I don't know, that's why >I am asking the "experts":-). I think the extra 250 lbs is not 250 lbs. All the Cozy MkIV are at least 1200 empty that are flying. Not to start another war but............ Nat told me that his weight on the MKIV started out at 1050 lbs. He then added a vacuum system and gauges, spinner, wheel pants, 40 lbs of seats and trim to the inside, 6 lb lower winglets. This was well before the engine conversion. I would expect his weight was around 1100 to 1150 before his franklin was installed. Adding 60 more lbs of engine would make it 1160 to 1210 lbs if nothing else changed. What is his new useful load? 2050 lbs - 1210 = 840 lbs - full fuel = 528 When walking by his airplane and looking at the Franklin I was confused at the weight that Nat wrote on the spec sheet mounted on his prop. The empty weight for his airplane was still 1050 lbs. How could this be??? This is what most people look at when checking out what's different from design to design. He must have one hell of an equipment list in his log books. Misinformation gets people in trouble when they think this will fill their needs for a airplane. I am not saying that Nat's not telling the truth but it sure seems that he is trying to advertise that he has a 1000 lbs useful load? In summary will Nat increase his Gross Weight because of more HP? Or will he leave it the same??? We increase ours to 2150 and I tested to 2200 lbs and felt that was what I needed for flying weight. We made lots of changes on the AeroCanard for those kind of landing weights. so I don't take this lightly. pardon the pun. Tim got Grand champion because it was the best in and out. The better the finish sometimes the higher the weight. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com